Neblett v. Macfarland
92 U.S. 101 (1875)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Neblett v. Macfarland, 92 U.S. 101 (1875)

Neblett v. Macfarland

92 U.S. 101

Syllabus

Where a conveyance of a plantation had been obtained by fraud, and the only consideration alleged by the grantee was the cancellation of a certain bond executed by the grantor, and the court below set aside the deed and ordered that the bond, unaffected by any endorsement of credit or payment thereon, should be returned, and that it and the mortgage therewith given should have the same force and effect as if the conveyance had not been made and the bond had not been cancelled, held that the decree was proper in not making the payment of the bond a condition precedent to the reconveyance of the plantation.

This is a suit in equity to set aside a deed of conveyance of a plantation known as "Mossland," in the State of Louisiana, executed by the appellee on the 19th of September, 1868, when temporarily residing in England. Macfarland, the complainant, who is the appellee in this Court, alleged that the conveyance had been procured by the false and fraudulent representations of the appellant and his father, Sterling Neblett.

The appellant, in his answer, alleged that the consideration for such conveyance was the surrender and cancellation of a bond for $14,464.51 executed by the appellee to Sterling Neblett, and by the latter endorsed to the appellant. The court below decreed that the deed of the complainant, conveying to the defendant the plantation in the bill of complaint described and designated as "Mossland," be, and the same is, declared null and void and of no effect, and that the title to the said plantation is declared to be vested in the said complainant to the same extent as if said deed had never been executed.

That within thirty days the defendant make, execute, and deliver to the complainant a deed reconveying said plantation to him in fee simple, and in default thereof that the decree

Page 92 U. S. 102

shall have the same operation and effect as the execution and delivery of said deed.

But neither the execution and delivery of such deed nor this decree shall in any wise affect the lien of said defendant on said plantation created by the deed of trust thereon to secure the said bond for $14,464.51.

That the original of said bond, now on file in this cause, be delivered up to the defendant, unaffected by any endorsement of credit or payment thereon, but this decree shall be without prejudice to any right which the defendant has under the bond and mortgage which he derived by the assignment of Sterling Neblett, but they shall have the same force and effect as if the deed had not been made, or any cancellation of the bond taken place.

From this decree Neblett appealed to this Court on the ground that the payment of Macfarland's bond was not made a condition precedent to the reconveyance of the property to him.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.